Don’t play Sicilian unless you’re over 2000
F3 gives lets active play from opponent .. moves like d4 and e4 c4 nf3 limits oppoennts choice of moves.. no one has ever advised play f3 in 1st move
@Ben10Tenyson said in #42:
> F3 gives lets active play from opponent .. moves like d4 and e4 c4 nf3 limits oppoennts choice of moves.. no one has ever advised play f3 in 1st move
You are not realising simple thing. I am not advising to play 1. f3 but telling (to everyone) to not focus on opening as any move isn't bad enough to lose.
> F3 gives lets active play from opponent .. moves like d4 and e4 c4 nf3 limits oppoennts choice of moves.. no one has ever advised play f3 in 1st move
You are not realising simple thing. I am not advising to play 1. f3 but telling (to everyone) to not focus on opening as any move isn't bad enough to lose.
I still play the dragon sometimes and if you play it often you probably will feel more comfortable playing it.
Just because a move is not losing doesnt mean its playable..its like playing 1e3 2e5 e4 ..this line is playable but makes no sense as we could have played e4 in 1st move
"... For players with very limited experience, ... the Sicilian Defence ... normally leaves you with little room to manoeuvre and is best left until your positional skills develop. ... I'm still not excited about my students playing the Sicilian Defence at [the stage where they have a moderate level of experience and some opening competence], because it almost always means playing with less space and development, and in some cases with exotic and not particularly instructive pawn-structures. ..." - IM John Watson (2010)
"... It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated opening variations played by, say, a world champion. After all, while the opening is indeed important in chess, it is still only one part of the game; victory can be found as well in the middlegame or endgame. Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame. ... How should we lay the foundations of our opening repertoire? It is hard to come up with a single answer to satisfy every player. Individuals will have different objectives in the opening, as well as different playing strengths. Nevertheless, to all players I can recommend the following: simplicity and economy. These are the characteristics of the opening systems of many great masters. They do not strain unduly for advantages in the opening; they would just as soon move on to the next phase of the game, hoping their skill will overcome the opponent in the middlegame or endgame. ... the most complicated variations demand huge amounts of time for home analysis, time available only to professional chess players. ... I will discuss here only openings and defenses that in my opinion offer simplicity and economy. ... The Dragon and Najdorf Variations ... have been analyzed to twenty moves and more; if a player without adequate preparation walks into an analyzed sequence he may lose even to a weaker opponent. Under no circumstances should you handle these variations in serious games unless you are a professional chess player with unlimited time for study. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)
"... It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated opening variations played by, say, a world champion. After all, while the opening is indeed important in chess, it is still only one part of the game; victory can be found as well in the middlegame or endgame. Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame. ... How should we lay the foundations of our opening repertoire? It is hard to come up with a single answer to satisfy every player. Individuals will have different objectives in the opening, as well as different playing strengths. Nevertheless, to all players I can recommend the following: simplicity and economy. These are the characteristics of the opening systems of many great masters. They do not strain unduly for advantages in the opening; they would just as soon move on to the next phase of the game, hoping their skill will overcome the opponent in the middlegame or endgame. ... the most complicated variations demand huge amounts of time for home analysis, time available only to professional chess players. ... I will discuss here only openings and defenses that in my opinion offer simplicity and economy. ... The Dragon and Najdorf Variations ... have been analyzed to twenty moves and more; if a player without adequate preparation walks into an analyzed sequence he may lose even to a weaker opponent. Under no circumstances should you handle these variations in serious games unless you are a professional chess player with unlimited time for study. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)
@Ben10Tenyson said in #45:
> Just because a move is not losing doesnt mean its playable..its like playing 1e3 2e5 e4 ..this line is playable but makes no sense as we could have played e4 in 1st move
Any non losing move is definitely playable unless one is playing for a win.
Also, it's noted generally that players who try for win are less successful that those who try for draw.
Plus, every beginner's favourite move is e3 (mine was as well). Who taught them to play and why do they play so? Ever thought of this. And don't come up with childish talks that they don't have to face a GM.
My aim is to popularize uncommon openings. The Blackburne Kloosterboer Gambit (e4 d5 exd5 c6) was rarely played at top level with Joseph Blackburne (after whom opening is named) successfully playing it out couple of times. If you see my games you will find that I played it most of the times.
And now I wish to try f3 to prove you wrong.
> Just because a move is not losing doesnt mean its playable..its like playing 1e3 2e5 e4 ..this line is playable but makes no sense as we could have played e4 in 1st move
Any non losing move is definitely playable unless one is playing for a win.
Also, it's noted generally that players who try for win are less successful that those who try for draw.
Plus, every beginner's favourite move is e3 (mine was as well). Who taught them to play and why do they play so? Ever thought of this. And don't come up with childish talks that they don't have to face a GM.
My aim is to popularize uncommon openings. The Blackburne Kloosterboer Gambit (e4 d5 exd5 c6) was rarely played at top level with Joseph Blackburne (after whom opening is named) successfully playing it out couple of times. If you see my games you will find that I played it most of the times.
And now I wish to try f3 to prove you wrong.
@Ben10Tenyson said in #1:
> Ive tried playing sicilian dragon as black for 1st time however engine gives white +2.5 to 3 advantage and i have no idea what i am doing wrong
Hi, I am a dragon lover and just bought a chessable course from Anish Giri (one of the best players in the world) for around 30 dollars and now I even beat a IM with the Dragon!
lichess.org/iy3SJ81y/
I think that the dragon is a great weapon and that you should not give it up!
> Ive tried playing sicilian dragon as black for 1st time however engine gives white +2.5 to 3 advantage and i have no idea what i am doing wrong
Hi, I am a dragon lover and just bought a chessable course from Anish Giri (one of the best players in the world) for around 30 dollars and now I even beat a IM with the Dragon!
lichess.org/iy3SJ81y/
I think that the dragon is a great weapon and that you should not give it up!
you arent provinf anyone wrong as i never said f3 is losing move ...
@Akbar2thegreat said in #47:
> Also, it's noted generally that players who try for win are less successful that those who try for draw. BEN10 TENYSON SAYS this is just a blatant lie players who played for draw never become good...carlsen fischer and lots of wc and they are most succesfull plauers play for win in most matches unless they are leading in tournament or emplying a drawing strategy (this fails most of time we can see what happened ton nepo or kasparov in the one aagainst karpov where he tried to draw) caruana got good result against carlsen by playing for win.
> Also, it's noted generally that players who try for win are less successful that those who try for draw. BEN10 TENYSON SAYS this is just a blatant lie players who played for draw never become good...carlsen fischer and lots of wc and they are most succesfull plauers play for win in most matches unless they are leading in tournament or emplying a drawing strategy (this fails most of time we can see what happened ton nepo or kasparov in the one aagainst karpov where he tried to draw) caruana got good result against carlsen by playing for win.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.